First-hand knowledge

Thank you for writing “Gender Bias Is Alive and Well” (June, From the President). As a “one out of every five lawyers over 55 years of age” and as a civil litigator in a world of male civil litigators, I know too well the bias that female attorneys have faced; add to that I am a blonde and am frequently mistaken for the court reporter or counsel’s secretary at depositions.

Discrimination, disparate treatment and other evils against female attorneys is not always as blatant as that endured by Pamela Robertson. But it is there, alive and well as I recently experienced in a seven-week trial in a small town north of Fresno County.

Thank you for standing up for your colleagues, who just happen to be women. Justice is supposed to be blind. Unfortunately, not all California judges are blind when it comes to the sex of the attorney handling the case.

Rose E. Mohan
Fresno

Liberal shibboleths

After seeing President Capozzi’s opinion on gender bias, I only wish that I could resign from the California bar as I have done from the ABA and ATLA. Apparently all large attorney associations now feel compelled to pander to liberal shibboleths such that any anecdotal claim of discrimination, whether based on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., are mutated into pervasive problems requiring major concern and intellectual resources.

The only facts that Mr. Capozzi calls upon to make his point are a Wisconsin statute from 1876 (!), one incident from Orange County where a pregnant attorney was clearly the victim of bad manners and bias from one judge, and the tired and discounted statistics about how female attorneys are subject to a glass ceiling in the profession.

In regards to the glass ceiling issue, any objective study that factors for disruption of careers for childrearing will show that the ceiling is largely non-existent.

Only political correctness prevents discussion of other innate differences between the sexes that probably account for the statistics of the profession. As is true with bias claims in any context, unequal outcomes alone are not sufficient evidence of discrimination.

Glenn Dorfman
Santa Barbara

Claims of pervasive bias offered without evidence

It is bad enough when the members of the general public cite a single event as supposed “proof” of a larger problem, but for the president of the State Bar to claim gender bias is “alive and well” due to a single incident exposes a flawed understanding of the notions of proof and evidence. Indeed, the closing question of his politically correct hit piece — how far has the status of women in our profession really advanced? — is answered by the very statistics he cites, showing incredible gains by women.

His reliance on the tired statistic concerning the percentage of women attaining partnership completely ignores the fact that more women than men leave the practice to raise families, and if they return, sometimes do so in capacities that do not seek partner status.

One of the law’s core values is learning the facts, and Mr. Capozzi’s opinion piece suggests he does not appreciate that concept or care about it.

What “evidence” exists, Mr. Capozzi, that gender bias is “alive and well?” What “evidence” do you have that the judge cited in your article is something other an aberration? None is cited, meaning you have failed in the basic proof of your claim.

I hope the next State Bar president is more careful about the foundation underlying opinion pieces. The attorneys of this state deserve better, and also deserve the removal of the gender bias MCLE requirement.

Stephen McNamara
Orange

Judges should take MCLE

After relating the recent incident in which an Orange County judge made disparaging remarks about the physical appearance of a female attorney who appeared before him while 8-1/2 months pregnant, Mr. Capozzi writes, “Lawyers often complain about having to take MCLE courses and especially a course on gender bias.

“This incident is a clear indication that more needs to be done in the area of gender bias and something should be done with this judge.”

He might have also noted that such an incident begs the question: Why have the powers that be determined that neither judges nor government lawyers have to meet any MCLE requirements whatsoever?

Paige Gold
Los Angeles

A lazy cop-out

I agree with Mark Hancock’s conclusion (Letters, June) that the State Bar should work out rules of reciprocity with our sister states. However, I take exception to his dogmatic statement that making reciprocity dependent on graduating from an ABA approved law school is a service to the legal profession. Not so; such a requirement is arbitrary, unfair as applied and improperly assumes that ABA graduates are better educated than non-ABA graduates. This is not necessarily true.

I graduated from UC Berkeley, with both BA and MA degrees, and worked as an exploration geologist and then as a civil engineer for the FAA. Later, I applied for and was admitted to USC law school. Unfortunately, the FAA sent me to work in New Mexico, I had to drop out of USC, but finished my legal education by correspondence.

As a sole practitioner, I went twice to the California Supreme Court and prevailed each time. By now I have 25 years of experience practicing law.

At this point, some intellectually piss-ant state like Nevada (which I like in other respects) tells me that my education isn’t good enough to permit me to practice there because I didn’t graduate from an ABA-approved law school. Give me a break.

The legal system in this country is supposed to be based on the principle that each person is entitled to be judged as an individual — I think it’s called due process. All the State Bar has to do is get an agreement from our sister states to review an applicant’s educational and professional record, and then decide if he is qualified. The ABA requirement is a lazy cop-out.

Eugene Kenway
Cathedral City

ABA approval means little

I am always alarmed when I read that, but for those rascally non-ABA law school graduates, the thorny reciprocity issue would be solved (June letters, Provincialism is at work). Let me point out non-ABA grads often go to law school for four instead of three years and must pass both the regular bar and the baby bar exams. Further, last I checked, Enron’s attorneys were all ABA graduates.

All kidding aside, California non-ABA options make law school available to just about anyone who wants to have a go at the bar exam and can meet the stringent requirements. Without these options, the California bar would be a lot less diverse. Personally, I can’t think of anything more challenging than studying law by correspondence before the advent of the personal computer — like I did while working full time as a social worker.

True reciprocity exists when each state bar extends identical privileges to the other. The California bar should continue its efforts but look to partners such as the District of Columbia bar, which already admits on motion all California lawyers practicing for five years in good standing, regardless of whether they graduated from an ABA-approved law school or not. ABA law school grads already have a multitude of options available to them, including many states that admit them on motion. If the bar acts on reciprocity, it should act on behalf of all its members, not just some.

Jonathan Levy
Hilton Head Island, S.C.

ABA approval for law schools outlives its value

Most states use the ABA’s school endorsement as a basic qualification for taking their bar exam. In my view this highly regarded approval has outlived its realistic value. The bar exam itself should be the bona fide measure of the standard each state wishes to impose on candidate practitioners.

I find it interesting that only 54.1 percent of those taking the one-day attorney’s exam passed. What about the failing 45.9 percent; can we assume that most of these are the product of the ABA endorsement?

Richard A. Dionne
Surprise, Ariz.

All those degrees don’t seem to help in job market

Thanks for the article about the epidemic of lawyers in California. Perhaps that, in part, explains why I haven’t found paid employment beyond the “scientific advisor” contract position I once had with the office of the DA of Alameda County.

I became a member of the California bar the year the epidemic peaked: 1997. Of course, with a PhD in epidemiology, and several masters degrees in science, I am a creature of unknown background, and dismissed. I didn’t go to law school to use my science background, but my intention appears to be unimportant.

Being a middle-aged woman doesn’t help either. I figure the younger and sexier, the more likely the woman is to be hired, at least by male attorneys of a certain age. Bias? In the legal profession?

But indeed I wonder, is there a legal remedy for the overproduction of attorneys? After all, many of us — at least I did — went into debt to pay tuition to schools that promulgated the fantasy. I watch as my younger colleagues get paid employment, and pay off their debts, while the interest on my law school loans continues to accrue.

Ann Reid Slaby
Berkeley